Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="aliengenius, post: 784800, member: 11924"]
Who knows how it "would have" played out. This, to me, is akin to a blackjack player criticizing another player's choice to hit or stand because the opposite decision "would have" caused the dealer to bust. You just can't know if the card will help or hurt you, just as you can't know if the three month delay will help or hurt you. Maybe someone will be able to get some psychological help with their 'stage fright' issues so they can play better on camera, maybe someone will die in a train crash, maybe maybe maybe..

How is someone being "in the zone" in July any more deserving of winning than someone who will be "in the zone" in October? You have put an artificial construct on it. In fact, you are [I]supposed[/I] to think of poker as one long game, with individual start and stop times are arbitrary and capricious-- so continuing again at a later date should be totally irrelevant to you.

On a related side note, ALL winners have had to endure different conditions on their way to victory, sometimes drastically different from their predecessors. We don't put an asterisk by Stu Ungar's name because he had to beat Doyle Brunson heads up instead of David Williams. We don't put an asterisk by Amarillo Slim's name because Pearson and Brunson basically ceded the title to him because they didn't want name recognition at the time. We don't put as asterisk by Jack Strauss because the field he had to beat in 1982 was so much smaller. Etc.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us